The main legal point established in the judgment is that once an application is filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the civil court has no jurisdiction to continue with the suit.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.P. Dube, Advocate and Sri Vipul Dube, Advocate have put their appearance on behalf of respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

“(a) To direct the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Agra to decide the application NO.37Ga filed by the petitioner-Corporation under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, forthwith;

(b) to set a side the order dated 10.7.2018 passed by the Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Agra;

(c) issue any other suitable, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case;

(d) award costs in favour of the applicant throughout."

3. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner-Indian Oil Corporation had appointed various retail outlet dealers for sale of petroleum products. After selection of respondent No.1 as a dealer, an agreement was executed between the petitioner-corporation and Sri Satish Kumar Arora, the proprietor of the retail outlet/respondent No.2 on 25.02.2005 for retail sale of petroleum products. An inspection of the retail outlet of the plaintiffs/respondents was carried out on 17.5.2017 in the presence of Sri Satish Kumar Arora, the proprietor of the retail outlet/respondent No.2, by a team nominated by the District Magistrate, Agra consisting of members namely B.K. Shukla, DSO Agra, Sri Mayank Kumar SO (Retail Sales) IOCL, Agra-I, Sri A.K.Mishra, ARO Agra, Sri Rohit Yadav, ACM-IV, Agra, Sri Rajvir Singh, Police Inspector Agra and Sri Sanjay Singh, Police Inspector, Agra, Sri Rajesh Singh, Inspector, W&M, Agra, Sri Shailendra Singh, Inspector W.&M, Agra, Sri Avdesh Singh, Service Engineer M/s Midco Ltd. and Sri A.K. Mahawar Senior Foreman, IOCL Agra. During the inspection of the retail outlet of the plaintiffs/respondents, it was found that the pulsar of 1 nozzle of Motor Spirit (petrol), bearing Sl. No.03GC0228GVR was suspected to be tampered as there was some extra soldering in the pulsar and based on the aforesaid inspection report, a fact finding letter dated 30.5.2017 was issued to the respondent No.1 asking him to submit his reply. At the time of inspection, the pulsar card was seized and sent by the petitioner-corporation to the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), i.e., M/s MIDCO for testing at their lab as per the Marketing Disciplinary Guidelines. Thereafter a report was submitted by the Midco on 28.2.20218 mentioning therein that ;

(1) One of the pulser signal cable is found connected to IS PIN through additional cable.

(2) PPFL cable is found disconnected from the pulsar PCB.

4. After perusal of the same, the competent authority namely Deputy General Manager (Retail Sales), Agra Division Agra. issued a show cause notice to the respondents on 25.05.2018.

5. It is argued by Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that on issuance of show cause notice, an original suit was preferred by the petitioner being Original Suit No.716 of 2018 with the following reliefs:-

“The plaintiffs, therefore, prays for judgment and decree for declaration as under:-

A. That a decree of declaration be passed against the defendant to declare the show cause notice dated 30.05.2017 and 25.05.2018 9sent on 04.07.2018) is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction be passed to restrain the defendant, its officers and employees from interfering in supplying of the petrol/diesel and other lubricants products of all kinds to the plaintiffs retail outlet by suspending or terminating the retail outlet and dealership stopping their supplies on the basis of the report dated 17.5.2017 and show cause notices dated 30.05.2017 and 25.5.2018 (sent on 4.7.2018) in any manner whatsoever.

B. That the defendant to pay cost of the suit.

C. That such other or further relief as the nature of the case admits